20090305-IMS 22000 06E1

8/7/2019 20090305-IMS 22000 06E1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/20090305-ims-22000-06e1 1/5

VIEWPOINT

ISO 22000’spotentialimpact onworld tradein agricultural

products

Hardly a day goes by

without the media

reporting on the dif-

ficult negotiations

within the World

Trade Organization

(WTO) and the threat

to international trade

should there be no success-

ful conclusion to the Doha

Round.

The problem most often report-

ed centers around market

access for agricultural prod-

ucts from developing countries

that cannot pass the prohibi-

tively high level of tariffs of the

industrialized countries.

Many of the developing coun-

tries suffer from deep pover-

ty. The only products they can

sell are agricultural products.

Developed countries, on theother hand, are justifiably wor-

ried about health risks due to

food poisoning and other food-

related illnesses. The situation

seems impossible to solve.

However, ISO 22000, Food

safety management systems –

Requirements for any organ-

ization in the food chain, has

the potential to bridge some

of the gaps between the richimporting and the poor would-

be exporting countries.

Food safety andinternational trade

To give an idea of the global

importance of the food and

agriculture sector, we can note

that the European food indus-

try alone represents a sector

valued at USD 700 billion dol-

lars and employment for more

than 2,6 million peo-

ple.1)

Efficient and har-

monized measures

to ensure safe and

adequate food sup-

ply chains and food

management are of

paramount importance to the

citizens of all countries. For

example, the worldwide con-

cerns linked to genetically

modified organisms and plants,

avian flu or foot-and-mouth

disease are examples of how

such concerns affect our dai-

ly lives.

To respond to such concerns,

safety measures have been

developed by different inter-

national organizations like the

Food and Agriculture Organ-

ization (FAO), the World

Health Organization (WHO),

the WTO and ISO.

While obviously necessar

each measure taken to ensu

food safety and to ensu

against food-related illnes

es has potentially devasta

ing impacts on the expor

ing countries, especially fro

developing and poor regio

of the world.

The importance and pote

tial negative impact of foo

safety measures is even hig

er in developing countrie

since the share of agricultu

in GDP, as well as with rega

to total population engaged

agriculture, represents maj

proportions in many of the

often very poor countries (s

Table 1).

Raymond Saner is Director of

the Centre for Socio-Eco-Nomic

Development (CSEND), an inde-

pendent, non-governmental

organization based in Geneva, Switzerland, specializing in capa-

city building, organizational

reform and institutional develop-

ment, and of its research and

development branch, Diplomacy

Dialogue.

Ricardo Guilherme is associate

trade researcher at CSEND,

specializing in trade law.

E-mail [email protected]

Web www.csend.org

Web www.diplomacydialogue.org

by Raymond Saner and Ricardo Guilherme

Country Share ofagriculture

in GDP

Share of totalpopulationengaged inagriculture

Bangladesh 30,0 59,6

India 27,0 56,8

Kenya 29,0 77,1

Pakistan 26,0 52,6

Senegal 18,0 75,0

Developing countries (average) 26,3 50,4

Table 1 – The importance of agriculture to wealth and employment

in developing countries.

FAO, “ Agriculture, Trade and Food Security : Issues and Options in the

WTO Negotiations from the Perspective of Developing Countries ”,Geneva, 2000, Volume II (GDP data taken from World Bank, World

Development Report, 1998/99).

1) “The Sixth FrameworkProgramme – new research

opportunities for SMEs ”, athttp://sme.cordis.lu/thematic/

home.cfm (as of 7 December 2005).

© ISO Management Systems, www.iso.org/im

8/7/2019 20090305-IMS 22000 06E1


VIEWPOINT

the consumers while minimiz-

ing negative impacts on food

producers whenever possible.

Unfortunately, what is legiti-

mate (food safety) is some-

times mixed up with illegiti-

mate goals (protectionism of

local food producers resulting

in discrimination against for-

eign food producers).

As the European Union (EU)

Trade Commissioner, Peter

Mandelson, has asserted,

“…future challenges in trade

policy [will be] in the so-called

non-tariff barriers to trade, to

which the question of stand-

ards is crucial … If not man-

aged with care, these meas-

ures can be impediments to

trade which are difficult to

justify.”

Therefore, long-lasting food

safety problems may result in

very negative impacts on the

economies of poor, developing

countries (see box, Impact of

SPS measures – Kenya).

The same holds true for strin-

gent food safety compliance

requirements – such as water

treatment and fumigation

requirements, maximum res-

idue limits of pesticides and

technical requirements high-

er than those in international

standards – imposed on poor-

er and smaller nations (see

box, Standards and non-tariff

barriers).

Ideally, food safety measures

should safeguard the lives of

He went on to say, “ [It mu

be] confusing for a third cou

try to receive one of 25 di

ferent national certificat

for a product that is subje

to harmonized EU rules ”. H

added : “…we must not allo

our standards to be based o

prejudice, or as a response

pressure groups. The basis f

them has to be sound scient

ic analysis .”

Impact of SPS measures – Kenya

The widely publicized case of European Union (EU) restric-

tions on fish exports from Lake Victoria in Kenya in 1997

gives us a glimpse of how hard food safety requirements

and subsequent import restrictions can impact develop-

ing countries.

The region of Lake Victoria was responsible in 2001 for

over 95 % of all Kenyan fish landings (with Nile perch as

the dominant species), having experienced a population

inflow around the lake border of more than 1,2 million

people in just two years. It is also worth noting that in the1980’s and 1990’s, Kenyan fishery was almost totally export-

oriented, mainly to the EU.

However, due to several concerns related to hygiene, salmo-

nella detection, pesticide residues and a cholera outbreak

in East Africa, the EU practically banned importation of

fresh fish from that region in 1997. This caused Nile perch

exports to fall from 14 143 tonnes in 1996 to 10 881 tonnes

in 1998, with export value dropping dramatically from USD

43,9 million in 1996 to USD 29 million in 1998.

ITC and Commonwealth Secretariat, “ Influencing and Meet ingInternational Standards – Challenges for Developing Countries ”,Geneva, 2003.

Standards and non-tariff barriers Standards and non-tariff barriers can prove quasi-insur-

mountable obstacles when practised against least devel-

oped countries and small island nations. The case of Jamai-

can pepper is an example of how difficult compliance with

sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) can become.

Jamaican hot pepper is a priority yield suitable for small

producers, and directed to both domestic and foreign mar-

kets such as the US, Canada and Mexico. However, exports

are currently lower than they were a decade ago.

Among other factors such as marketing and production

problems, food safety issues, like a gall midge infestation

in 1997, prompted the US to demand fumigation on all

peppers exported from Jamaica, including bell and chili

peppers (even though the gall midge pest had been only

detected in hot peppers).

Quick action was taken by the Jamaican government to

solve the issue, but the comprehensive measures requested

by the US meant only that production costs would increase

for Jamaica. To make matters worse, the Jamaican Hot Pep-

per Task Force and the US Animal and Plant Health Inspec-

tion Services (APHIS) agreed, in 2002, on a 10-point SPS

system to remove the fumigation requirements

In the event, Jamaica did not implement the system, high-

lighting the considerable problems that US measures have

caused to Jamaican exporters. As the World Bank says, while

the Jamaican government has been proactive to respond

to the problem, pay-offs were close to zero and exports

virtually crumbled.

ISO 22000 has thepotential to bridgesome of the gaps

between the rich and thepoor countries

© ISO Management Systems, www.iso.org/ims

8/7/2019 20090305-IMS 22000 06E1


In fact, more has to be don

in terms of technical assis

ance and capacity building

poorer countries, particula

ly under the Standards an

Trade Development Facili

(STDF)5), a joint initiative b

FAO, World Organization f

Animal Health (OIE), Wor

Bank, WHO and WTO.

VIEWPOINT

In conclusion, the EU Trade

Commissioner underlined the

need for a continued push “ for

harmonization of SPS prod-

ucts and process requirements

through the establishment of

international rules.” 2)

or recommendations, where

they exist ”3).

The Agreement defines the

Codex Alimentarius Commis-

sion as the body responsible

for establishment of standards,

guidelines and recommenda-

tions related to food safety,

Harmonization

The use of harmonized food

safety measures between mem-

ber countries of the WTO,

on the basis of international

standards developed by inter-

national organizations, consti-

tutes a main goal of the WTO

Agreement on the Application

of Sanitary and Phytosanitary

Measures ( SPS Agreement ).

The SPS Agreement attempts

to regulate harmonization

when it comes to measures

applied to protect human,

animal or plant life or health,

stating that, “to harmonize

sanitary and phytosanitary

measures on as wide a basis

as possible, members shall

base their sanitary or phy-

tosanitary measures on inter-national standards, guidelines

food additives, veterinary drug

and pesticide residues, contam-

inants, methods of analysis and

sampling, and codes and guide-

lines of hygienic practice.

Members are able to employ

more stringent levels of protec-

tion, provided there is sound

scientific justification and anon-discriminatory assessment

of risks. But the fact of the

matter is that the SPS Agree-

ment sometimes provides for

ambivalent flexibility in terms

of applicable food safety meas-

ures, thus causing several com-

pliance problems especially in

the case of developing coun-

tries’ agricultural exports (see

box, Standards and non-tariff

barriers).

Disparities are not limited to

transactions between devel-

oped and developing coun-

tries ; divergences abound even

in North-North and South-

South negotiations, corrobo-

rating the dire need for har-

monization and homogeneous

treatment of SPS measures in

the international trading envi-

ronment.

In a meeting held 29-30 June

20054), the WTO Committee on

SPS Measures reported specific

examples of trade concerns

that ranged

from Austral-

i a ’ s i m por t

rest r i ct ions

on apples from New Zealand,

the EU and the United States,

to the EU’s private retailers’

EurepGap fruit and vegetable

restrictions against least devel-

oped countries (LDC’s), or also

to Japan’s import suspension

on heat-processed straw and

forage for feed due to a foot-

and-mouth disease outbreak

in China.

In the same meeting, China

asserted that the “volume of

notifications of SPS meas-

ures posed a significant prob-

lem for developing countries”,

in contradiction with special

and differential treatment for

developing countries, and in

particular LDC’s.

ISO 22000 – a feasiblealternative ?

The importance of ISO to t

current debate on food safe

is clear. ISO has a long-stan

ing and productive cooper

tion with the Codex Alimetarius Commission with mo

than 300 ISO standards havin

2) Speech by Peter Mandelson atthe Conference on EU Exportsand Sanitary and PhytosanitaryMeasures, Brussels, 27 May 2005.

3) WTO Agreement on the Appliction of Sanitary and PhytosanitaryMeasures, Article 3.1 (excerpt).

4) WTO Committee on Sanitary anPhytosanitary Measures, summary the meeting held on 29-30 June 200(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1), 18 August 200

5) See www.standardsfacility.org

© ISO Management Systems, www.iso.org/im

8/7/2019 20090305-IMS 22000 06E1


VIEWPOINT

Food safety problemsmay result in verynegative impacts on

the economies of poor,developing countries

been adopted by Codex in such

areas as food products, water

quality, chemistry and con-

formity assessment 6).

This historically tight cooper-

ation between ISO and Codex

means that proper harmoniza-

tion of food safety management

systems may not be just a distant

ambition, but a viable objective

after all under the international

trade framework.

Accordingly, at a July 2005 ses-

sion of Codex, several govern-mental delegations underlined

the view that ISO’s activities in

providing harmonized interna-

tional standards for adoption as

national standards are impor-

tant, and that Codex should con-

tinue its cooperation with ISO

in the relevant areas. The com-

plementary character of ISO and

Codex denoted the importance

of an optimized coordination

between the two bodies7).

ISO 22000, publ i shed on

1 September 2005, solidifies a

response to an increasingly

diverse mesh of domestic food

safety regulations, without side-

tracking from the wider scope

of the ISO 9001:2000 quality

management system standard

and the Hazard Analysis and

Critical Control Point (HAC-

CP) parameters adopted by

Codex.

By facilitating the implementa-

tion of HACCP guidelines and

harmonizing otherwise diverse

national regulations, the ISO

22000 standard might be able

to respond to legitimate food

safety requirements while at

the same time help reduce the

non-tariff barriers caused by

the use of illegitimate (protec-

tionist) SPS measures.

ISO 22000 mirrors the HACCP

principles and facilitates their

practical implementation on a

step-by-step basis (see Table 2),

striking a homogeneous balance

as a food safety standard for coun-

tries and private players alike.

With its “ food chain/process-

driven ” approach, ISO 22000

treats food safety concerns in a

holistic manner that efficiently

oversees the “ forest ” of safetyrequirements, while linking indi-

vidual processes to the whole

system and ensuring objective

measurement of results.

This means that domestic food

safety management systems

around the world could be sub-

ject to equivalent performance

evaluations. At the same time,

capacity-building efforts, instead

of aiming at costly bilateralcompliance initiatives, could

be more easily implemented

in an internationally accepted

manner, even if adjustments

to regional conditions are to be

taken into account.

ISO 22000 – strategic step

ISO 22000, covering HACCP

principles, Codex application

steps and the main require-

ments of private food retail-

ers, may play a crucial role in

the attainment of a basic food

safety standard for producers

in developed and developing

countries. It thus represents a

strategic step towards further

harmonization of food safety

demands in the global arena.

In other words, ISO 22000 would

be able to moderate concerns

related to trade barrier negot-

iations and streamline capacity-

building efforts in developing

countries. If properly adopt-

ed and implemented by coun-

tries, it would reflect universally

accepted food safety require-

ments, demanding fewer dis-

parate efforts by countries and

producers on tight budgets.

With the potential for increased

transparency and traceability

measures, ISO 22000 is a use-

ful tool to address the sensi-

tive issue of SPS measures as

discriminatory or disguised

restrictions in international

trade and in access to expo

markets.

ISO 22000 could be the ma

conduit for SPS trade faci

tation, simplifying formaliti

connected with importatio

and exportation, and allowin

developing countries to crea

more employment, increa

domestic revenue and meet th

necessary poverty reductio

and millennium developme

goals in due course 8).

And given proper political w

by member countries, offici

endorsement of ISO 2200

and other ISO standards by th

SPS Agreement, in cooperatio

with ISO, national accreditatio

authorities and the STDF initi

tive, would finally enable effe

tive WTO negotiations on th

harmonization of standards.

This would ensure that th

food safety interests of mo

countries do not conflict wi

the capacity-building and ma

ket access needs of poor

nations.

HACCP steps Equivalentcoverage

by ISO22000 ?

Hazard Analysis YES

Critical ControlPoint (CCP)Determination

YES

CCP Limits YES

Monitoring

of CCPs

YES

Corrective

Action Plan

YES

System

Verification

YES

Documentation YES

Table 2 – Comparison of HACCP and

ISO 22000.

6) WTO Committee on Sanitaryand Phytosanitary Measures, stament by the representative of ISat the meeting of 29-30 June 200

(G/SPS/GEN/589), 11 July 2005.One may also mention the newlypublished ISO/PAS 28000 specifcation or supply chain securitymanagement systems as an addi-tional apparatus to foster smoothand coordinated flows of international trade among countries.

7) Codex Alimentarius CommissioReport of the Twenty-Eighth Ses-sion on 4-9 July 2005 (Alinorm05/28/41), Rome, 2005.

8) See, for instance, Annex E of tDraft Ministerial Text (Doha Wo

Programme – Preparations for thSixth Session) of the MinisterialConference, 2005.

© ISO Management Systems, www.iso.org/ims

8/7/2019 20090305-IMS 22000 06E1


Note: This publication has been made available by CSEND.org with the agrement of the author.

The Centre for Socio-Eco-Nomic Development (CSEND) aims at

promoting equitable, sustainable and integrated development through dialogue and

institutional learning.

Diplomacy Dialogue is a branch of the Centre for Socio-Eco-Nomic Development

(CSEND), a non-profit R&D organization based in Geneva, Switzerland since 1993.

20090305-IMS 22000 06E1

Documents

Transcript of 20090305-IMS 22000 06E1